外交部政策研究课题重点合作单位(2022—2024年)

欧洲时报:张家栋:家在何方:达赖“中间道路”评析

发布时间:2016-09-18浏览次数:675

2014年底的一天,我来到印度南部城市班加罗尔,走访了一个冷冷清清的藏人市场。当听说复旦大学的教授来了,很多藏胞围了过来。有商人,也有附近一所大学的学生。从藏胞的眼神中,我看到了一丝忧虑和游移,也看到了渴望与期待。随后,一位藏胞把我带到一个宾馆,负责打理宾馆的是一个年轻的藏族小伙。他其实还是一个孩子,只有十几岁。由于父母对达赖喇嘛的崇拜,他几岁时与襁褓中的妹妹一起,被人带过喜马拉雅山。和那些与在中国的家人有联系、有家庭归属感和经济来源的同龄人相比,他对家人没有任何记忆。为了供养妹妹读书,他十几岁就开始工作,成了异国他乡一片孤零零的落叶。直到今天,我仍然不能忘记他那双忧伤的、与年龄完全不相称的眼睛。那位自愿为我们导游的藏族商人无奈地告诉我,政治人物只会组织我们参加反华抗议,组织我们翻过高山,但对我们的真实感受和想法并不感兴趣。随着中国的发展,他身边越来越多的人想回到中国,但身份问题难以解决,只有很少的人能够如愿。独立的道路走不通,但通过达赖喇嘛的“中间道路”,他们能回到家乡吗?那个被很多人吹捧的“中间道路”,能解决流亡藏人的诉求和问题吗?一个既得不到藏人支持、也不得中国中央政府认可的倡议,仅仅依靠少数达赖集团“精英”的推动,能够成功吗?

1、中间路线只是达赖集团的权宜之计,并非达赖集团长期坚守的政策

首先,中间道路是达赖集团恐怖暴力活动失败的产物。与国际社会对达赖集团“和平、非暴力形象”的认识相反,达赖集团曾长期坚持武装暴力路线。在1959年开始,在美国等少数国家的支持下,达赖集团曾长期坚持武装暴力活动,并受到专业的叛乱知识与技能培训。上世纪70年代中美关系改善,美国逐渐停止了对达赖集团武装斗争的支持,达赖集团被迫改变“斗争策略”,响应美国提出的“主权外交”理念。在此背景下,“中间道路”在1987年达赖在美国众议院人权小组上提出的“五点和平计划”、1988年在法国斯特拉斯堡欧洲议会散发的“七点新建议”基础上形成。达赖在1974年就提出了“中间道路”的政治主张,但这也是在中美关系改善之后。很显然,达赖集团并非天生和平、非暴力,是暴力路线走不通的结果,并非其本意。

其次,达赖集团对中间道路的坚持已有多次反复,很难被信任。当然,对于达赖集团的“弃暴从良”,中国中央政府是欢迎的,并在此基础上与达赖的代表进行了多次接触与谈判。但是,达赖集团以中国国家可能崩溃、政治制度可能根本改变为前提,提出很多无理要求。19884月,达赖在印度达兰萨拉会见英国《金融时报》记者时首次提出要通过“中间道路”来解决所谓“西藏问题”。但很快,达赖喇嘛就错判了局势,不断发出与中间路线不一致的声音。1989年西方将“诺贝尔和平奖”授予十四世达赖后,达赖集团的气焰进一步高涨,预言“5年之内西藏独立会实现。”。19909月,达赖对荷兰记者说:“苏联的变化,给西藏获得自由带来了新的契机、新的希望,给了我们新的勇气和力量。”1991年达赖宣称:“3年内一定要把西藏搞成独立国家。”19921月,达赖说:“中国510年内肯定会发生变化,西藏独立的愿望完全可以实现。”1992年达赖在《3·10声明》中说:“在流亡中,我们也正在为未来的一个有着充分民主的西藏奠基……准备好接管西藏政权。”1993年,达赖更宣布不与“不稳定的中国政府”接触,并中断了与中央政府接触的既定渠道。1995年,达赖喇嘛又预言:“西藏独立的日子即将来临,我将宣布西藏脱离中国实现彻底独立。”

进入新世纪以后,中国经济快速发展,政治更加稳定,达赖集团非常失望,被迫与中央政府进行接触,但仍然不放弃自己的独立主张。2008年,达赖私人代表提交了一份《为全体藏人获得真正自治的备忘录》,声称这是“中间道路”的最新版本,“西藏流亡政府”是世界上所有藏人的“代表”,应当享有同中国政府平起平坐的权力,提议由达赖派人同中央共同组成班子,对中国宪法进行“修改”。

正是因为达赖集团这些不切实际的想像与要求,关闭了与中央政府谈判的大门。事实上,达赖集团从来就没有与中央政府进行谈判的诚意,只是利用这些接触,来维持自己的和平非暴力形象而已。

2、中间路线违背国际社会的共识 

西藏是中国领土不可分割的一部分,这是当今世界所有国家和重要国际组织的共识。但是达赖集团的中间道路,核心前提是以主权国家身份与中国中央政府进行谈判,试图以从不存在的“主权”来交换所谓的“自治权”。事实上,这是达赖集团为在“条件成熟”时重新公开打出“西藏独立”旗号埋下历史和法理依据,是变以前的武装暴力独立、为现在的和平渐进式独立。这与国际社会对西藏问题的普遍认定,是相违背的。

中间路线甚至还违背当今世界的政治实践。根据藏独组织的设想,不仅中国当前的政治制度不能保障西藏的权益,就连美国和欧洲式的民主政治也不能保护西藏的权益,因为不能防止“多数暴政”(the majority tyranny)。在达赖集团所支持的“中国联邦”想象中,大西藏将保留外交和国防以外的所有权力,包括立法、司法和行政。就连军队,当西藏和平区建立以后,也要撤出。这种政治模式,在从美国到欧洲的任何西方国家中,都不曾出现。很难想象,在美国的任何一个邦、在法国的任何一个省,可以完全独立于国家的法律和行政体系之外。换句话说,藏独集团想获得主权国家称号以外几乎所有主权国家的权力,“真正自治”(true autonomy)其实就是“事实独立”,是要建立一个准国家(psudo nation state)。

中间道路不顾历史事实和现实状况。中间路线所要建立的包括全部藏人的真正自治,其实是要求中国政府将包括西藏和青海全部,四川的两个自治州,甘肃和云南各一个自治州交由达赖集团统治,总面积占到中国国土面积的四分之一。自1642年五世达赖喇嘛在西藏建立甘丹颇章政权,一直到1959年第十四世达赖喇嘛流亡印度,拉萨政府从未把自己的行政权施加到整个藏区。一个民族的全部成员建立一个国家或一个省的现象,在世界历史上从来没有出现过,在实践上也有不可能。如果要强行这样做,所带来的肯定是更大规模的冲突与动荡,甚至是流血与牺牲。

达赖集团有意或无意地生活在一个想象的世界之中。很多藏独分子想当然地认为,他们的独立主张得到国际社会的广泛支持,只是受到中国的强大压制,很多国家不敢公开、正面表达。但事实上,从美国到欧洲国家,这些国家没有一个是中国可以欺负的,也没有一个美欧国家会在西藏问题上屈服于所谓来自中国的“压力”。并且,美欧国家早就承认西藏是中国的一部分。在上世纪50年代时,中国还很弱小,根本就谈不上什么国际政治权力。那时的中国,也与美欧国家总体上处于敌对或不友好的状态。美欧国家既不需要屈服于中国,也不需要讨好中国,对西藏问题的认识基于一个基本事实:西藏是中国的一部分。而对于这一点,达赖集团似乎并不愿意看到。

3、中间路线鼓吹宗教原教旨主义

中间路线的一个理论基础是西藏民族独特的宗教文化要绝对保留,不能受到其他民族文化的“浸染”。但事实上,在这个世界上,所有宗教文化群体之间都是互动的,藏传佛教本身也是在中国文化、印度佛教和本土苯教的基础上形成的。没有不同宗教文化的相互影响与融合,就没有西藏的今天,也不会有达赖喇嘛。

在解放之前,青藏高原海拔高,交通困难,与内地交流规模和程度都非常有限,西藏宗教文化的发展与演变速度也比较慢。但是在全球化、信息化的今天,不管在西藏实行什么样的政治制度,用什么样的统治方法,西藏都不可能维持所谓的传统时代。强调宗教文化的独特性而不是共通性,本质上是在鼓吹宗教原教旨主义,是打着和平旗号的“圣战士”。

并且,达赖集团所想要恢复的美好时光,对于广大藏民来说,一点都不美好。在解放军进藏之前,广大藏民不仅没有财产和人身自由,甚至还没有思想自由。低层民众完全被宗教上层所控制,失去自主思维的能力。直到今天为此,哪怕流亡在外这么多年,受到世界文化如此长时期的熏陶,很多藏人还是离不开达赖喇嘛的“领导”和“指示”。那些所谓西藏文化“独特文化”的代表,不仅剥夺了广大西藏人民的财产还剥夺了其生命,不仅占有了低层信众的现世还想占有其来世。这种黑暗状态,远远超过了欧洲历史上的中世纪,与当今世界主流政治价值,无论是中国的还是与欧美的,都严重相违背。

这一旧宗教文化,不仅违背现代政治原则,甚至也违背佛教的宗旨与教义。释迦牟尼创立佛教,初衷就是促进一个“众生平等”的世界,而不是要搞一个凌驾于众生之上的等级制宗教体系。但可惜的是,出于浪漫主义想像而产生的对西藏旧宗教文化的盲目崇拜,使得一些人自觉或不自觉地放弃了自己在西方世界所长期坚持的民主、自由和平等等基本政治原则。家在何方:达赖“中间道路”评析

4、中间路线违背当前国际社会鼓励跨文化交流与融合的主流

当今世界的主流是鼓励各文明群体的对外开放,鼓励不同文明群体之间的互动与交流,相互间取长补短,共同进步,实现世界的共生状态。但是,达赖集团一方面高举跨宗教交流的旗帜,组织“汉藏对话”,但又在“中间道路”中图谋历史上从来就不存在的“大藏区”,试图割裂西藏民众、西藏宗教文化与外部世界、尤其是与中国主流群体之间的天然联系。一方面,藏族宗教文化与中国本土、及至与世界宗教文化的联系是现实存在的,也是割不断的。中间路线的无理要求,其实是逆潮流而动。另一方面,中间路线中所包含的藏传佛教独特论或例外论,既不符合其实,也给广大藏族民众带来更多风险,达赖集团自己也做不到。

西藏拥有独特的宗教文化,应该被保存下去。但应该被保存的,是藏传佛教中的一些精华,而不是包括落后、愚昧和迷信在内的“所有”。在这个世界上,没有哪种文明不是在与其他文明的互动中产生的,无论是西方还是东方、是基督教还是佛教,都是一样。所有文化,包括其政治、经济和语言特征,都必须与时俱进,否则就会被抛弃。甚至是世界上最强大的美欧国家,其文化和宗教也越来越具有非西方、非基督教传统的内容。所有文明群体都是在互动中求生存,都要主动从其他文化、尤其是主流文化群体中获得承认与营养。一个真正有生命力的文明群体,不在于其自身封闭,而在于其与其他文明群体的积极互动能力。中间路线所设想的西藏宗教文化独立王国,其实是要把西藏割裂出世界文明主流以外,最终不仅难以保存自己,反而可能更加快速地衰亡。

事实上,反华宣传成为达赖集团存在的精神食粮,阻止藏族民众与广大中国人民之间的正常交流与互动,成为主要手段。尤其是流亡群体中,达赖集团长期致力于反华、反共宣传,努力在民众心目中维持对中国和中国政府的恐惧,并不断煽动、制造一些事件来巩固这种恐惧与仇视。这种作法完全违背当今世界包容、和平的主流。 

5、中间路线鼓吹“大藏族主义”

“中间道路”的一个隐性前提是要反对“大汉族主义”,认为由于人口劣势,藏族与汉族无法平等相待。但事实上,中国有55个少数民族,大多都与主体民族关系良好、休戚与共,并不存在大小民族不能平等相待的现象。

中间路线在本质上是鼓吹民族例外论。中间道路的前提是藏族民众与其他民族、尤其是与汉族无法共同生活,所以只好高度自治,最好是独立。为达此目的,达赖集团在国外努力阻止流亡藏人融入国际社会,寻找正常的生活;在中国国内,达赖集团则不断挑起藏民族对其他民族、尤其是汉族的仇恨。

中间道路其实是在鼓吹大藏族主义,漠视其他民族的基本权益。在达赖集团所声称“所有藏族人民置于一个单一的自治政权之下”(autonomy for all the Tibetan people under a single administration)将包括的区域内,现有各族居民2000多万人,其中藏族只有600多万人,约占30%左右。据达赖1987年向美国国会的报告,至少要驱走750万汉人,超过藏族民众的总量。“中间道路”试图以占30%的藏族人口,主宰其他70%各族人民的命运,其“自由”精神和“平等”意志,荡然无存,基本上是法西斯主义的观点。

在本质上,中间道路是西藏上层优越心理、主人意识的体现。达赖集团其实是在贬低广大藏族民众的能力,以广大藏族民众的代言人和保护者自居。藏族民众有足够的能力与其他民族共处、共同竞争。目前,藏族工商人士不仅在西藏,在内地也发展良好。至于藏独组织所努力反对的“大汉族主义”,在中国根本就没有市场。在中国,从宪法到日常行政措施,没有任何法律和政策,是基于“汉族”身份制订的。而基于少数民族身份的特惠法律和政策,倒是有很多。

小结

因此,中间道路,在本质上既不“中间”,也不“温和”。广大藏民,尤其是流亡藏民,事实上是达赖集团用来要挟国际舆论和中国中央政府的筹码。广大藏民虽然信仰达赖喇嘛所代表藏传佛教,但并不自动代表着他们真的赞成达赖集团的政治主张。那位在班加罗尔自愿给我当导游的藏族青年无奈地告诉我,他在藏人儿童村读书的时候,经常被动员起来参加反华游行。他们反过江泽民,也反过胡锦涛。其实,当时他还很小,根本就不知道这些中国领导人是谁。老师让去反,那就去反呗!沿着达赖集团的中间道路,那位愁眉不展的藏族小伙,很难找到自己的家,也很难踏上回家的路。

政治人物斗法,与生民何干。看来,建立一个超越政治与宗教局限性、以人为本的框架体系,是解决达赖集团问题的关键,也关系到广大藏民的长远利益。

中文链接:

http://www.oushinet.com/voice/zhuanjialuntan/20160916/242735.html?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0


英文版:

Analysis of Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach: A Way Leads to Nowhere

Late 2014, Bengaluru, South India. I visited a desolate market run by Tibetan people. Knowing that a Professor of Fudan University just arrived, many Tibetans came to the market and gathered around me——they were business people and university students. I saw from their eyes a trace of concern and reservation, as well as a gleam of longing and hope. I was later led to a guesthouse run by a Tibetan young man whose parents were followers of the Dalai Lama. Technically speaking, he was just a teenage boy but was taken to India at an early age along with his sister in early infancy. While most of his peers still have relatives back in China and can earn enough to live in Tibet, he had neither memory of his family, nor any sense of belonging to Tibet. As a diaspora here, he had to start working in his early teenage years to pay for his sister’s tuition. Until today, I still find it hard to believe that such sadness is elicited from the eyes of a young boy. A Tibetan businessman volunteered to be our tour guide told me that politicians such as the Dalai Lama are much more interested in instigating Tibetan people to turn against China, to run away from Tibet over huge mountains, but less in caring about people’s real concerns. As China’s economy grows, more and more Tibetan people consider going back to China. However, only few of them have managed to do so because of immigration issues. Since Tibetan independence is a blind alley, would the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach be a solution to Tibetan issues?

1. A Makeshift Measure of Dalai Lama, Not a Long-term Policy

First of all, The Middle Way Approach is the compromise of the Dalai Lama’s failed violent strategy. Contrary to his peaceful and nonviolent image perceived by the international community, Dalai Lama is the man behind several violent attacks. Supported by the US and a few other countries, the Dalai Lama and his followers have received professional training and skills to overthrow the Chinese government in Tibet using violence since 1959. As the Sino-US relations normalised in 1970s, the US gradually put a brake on supporting Dalai Lama’s violent approach, and the Dalai Lama was forced to give up violence and turned to Sovereign Diplomacy, a strategy suggested by the US. In the wake of the changing international political climate, the Dalai Lama put forward The Middle Way Approach in 1974, followed by his Five Point Peace Plan for Tibet proposed in 1987 in the US and Seven Point New Suggestions proposed in 1988 when addressing to the Members of theEuropean Parliament in Strasbourg. It is evident that the peaceful and nonviolent strategy is not what the Dalai Lama and his followers intended, but the result of their failed violent strategy.

Secondly, the Dalai Lama and his followers are not to be trusted for their chop and change attitude to their own Middle Way Approach. The Chinese government would welcome the Dalai Lama and his followers if they really gave up violence and turned to peaceful talks. As a matter of fact, the Chinese government has conducted many talks and negotiations with the Dalai Lama’s representatives, but they have attempted to impose many unacceptable conditions based on the assumption of fundamental changes to Chinese political system and collapse of the country. In April 1988, the Dalai Lama for the first time suggested the Middle Way Approach to solve Tibetan issues in his meeting with a journalist from Financial Times in Dharamsala, India. Yet not long after that, Dalai claimed that he had misperceived the international situation and made opinions contradictory to the Approach. He was even more arrogant after being granted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, and predicted that Tibet would achieve independence in 5 years. In September 1990, the Dalai Lama told a Dutch journalist that the collapse of the Soviet Union brought new opportunity, new hope, renewed strength and courage to his cause. He proclaimed in 1991 that Tibet must be an independent country in three years. In January 1992, Dalai predicted that changes would certainly take place in China in the coming 5 to 10 years and complete independence of Tibet would be achieved. In 3·10 Statement in 1992, Dalai said that “In exile as we are, we must be well-prepared to take over a Tibet with complete democracy in the future”. In 1993, the Dalai Lama announced that he would not have any contact with “an unstable Chinese government” and thus cut the communication with central government in China. In 1995, Dalai made another prediction: “Tibetan independence will be just around the corner. I will then proclaim myself that Tibet is not part of China anymore”.

In the 21st century, China has become more economically prosperous and politically stable, which has made Dalai disappointed and compelled him to resume connections with Chinese central government, though he still advocates for Tibetan independence. In 2008, the so-called latest version of the Middle Way Approach, known as Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People was proposed by Dalai’s representatives. It argued that the Tibetan Government in exile is the representative of all Tibetan people around the world and should share equal power as Chinese government has; Dalai should appoint his representatives to form joint leadership with Chinese central government and be granted the right to edit the constitution articles. 

It was the unrealistic requests Dalai made that shut the door of communication with Chinese central government. In fact, Dalai has never talked with Chinese government with honesty. He was just putting on airs to maintain his “international reputation”.

2. The Middle Way Approach Goes Against the Consensus of International Community 

It is a general consensus of international community that Tibet is an inseparable part of China. The Middle Way Approach advocated by the Dalai Lama and its followers aims at conducting negotiations with Chinese government premised on Tibet being a sovereign state. They attempted to trade Tibetan autonomy with the “sovereignty” that has never been recognised. As a matter of fact, the Dalai Lama and his followers are preparing for, when their time arrives, playing the card of Tibetan independence once again. Therefore, it is against the consensus acknowledged by international community regarding Tibet’s political status.

The Middle Way Approach is also breaking the norm of contemporary political practice. As Tibetan separatists claimed, the interest of Tibet will be neither protected by the Chinese political system nor the Western democracy practised in the US and Europe, because they don’t think either systems will prevent the majority tyranny. In Dalai’s imagination of China Federation, Greater Tibet would maintain all the power a sovereign state enjoys such as judicial, executive and legislative power, though excluding diplomacy and national defence. The troops, however, would have to move out once a peace zone is established in Tibet. This kind of political configuration is unprecedented in any western countries, and it would be hard to imagine a state in the US or a province in France enjoys complete independence above its national judicial and executive system. In other words, the true autonomy Tibetan separatists are claiming for is technically the de facto independence and the status of a pseudo national state.

Furthermore, the Middle Way Approach disregards the historical facts and current situation. The true autonomy of all Tibetan people requested by Dalai is in essence requesting Chinese government to secede the whole Tibet, Qinghai Province, two autonomous prefectures in Sichuan Province, one autonomous prefecture in Gansu and Yunnan Province to Dalai’s rule, which altogether takes an area of a quarter of China’s territory. Since the 5th Dalai Lama established dGa' ldan pho brang regime in 1642 in Tibet till the 14th Dalai Lama exiled to India in 1959, the Lhasa government has never extended its sphere of influence to the whole area of Tibet. A mono-ethnic country built exclusively for people of that particular ethnicity is unprecedented in world’s history and humanely impossible to be practiced in reality. If imposed, it will definitely bring about chaos, instability and even bloodshed.

Dalai is building a world in mind based on his own imagination, consciously and unconsciously. For many Tibetan separatists, they have taken it for granted that their cause of Tibetan independence is widely supported by international community. They think many countries have not expressed their support loudly and squarely for the sake of pressure from Chinese government. Nevertheless, Chinese government would by no means impose any pressure on any countries. Conversely, the western countries would not be subject to China’s pressure either, had there been such imposition. In addition, it has been long acknowledged by the US and European countries that Tibet is part of China. In 1950s, China was much less powerful to leverage political pressure on other countries, and most western powers were antagonistic to China. Even though, they acknowledged a basic fact that Tibet is part of China, and they did so neither for the sake of pressure nor at China’s pleasure. However, Dalai refused to face this reality.

Before Tibet was liberated in 1959, it had very limited contact with other parts of China due to underdeveloped transportation system on the impassable Tibetan Plateau. The culture and religion in Tibet has therefore been developing in a slow mode. In the contemporary world where globalisation and information play a key role, Tibetans cannot live in their own bubble of the ‘traditional era’, regardless of whichever political system they adopt. Dalai and his followers’ repeatedly emphasise on the uniqueness instead of commonality of a religion that essentially advocates religious fundamentalism. They are mujahedeen (guerrilla warriors) masked by pacifist facade.

Additionally, the ‘good old days’ Dalai and his followers have tried so hard to retrieve, in many Tibetan people’s point of view, is old but not good at all. Before the People’s Liberation Army entered Tibet, the general public, controlled by the religious elites, had neither civil liberties nor freedom of thought. Even today, having been in exile for such a long time and blended with various cultures, many Tibetan exiles still take the Dalai Lama as their sacred leader. Those who excessively advocate the superiority of Tibetan culture have actually once deprived Tibetan people’s personal property and even their lives; they have controlled Tibetan people’s present lives and their afterlives. The cruelty as such is incomparable even by that of Medieval Period, Europe’s darkest history. A regime as such is intolerable by any political value in today’s world, be it Chinese or Western.

Also, this outdated religious system goes against modern political principles and Buddhist orthodoxy. When Buddhism was founded by Sakyamuni, it aimed at building a world where all lives are equal, and a society no longer built on hierarchies. Unfortunately, the blind religious cult of some Tibetan people out of their unrealistic imagination has gone unchecked, and they gave up basic political principles such as democracy, equality and freedom.

4. The Middle Way Approach Goes Against the Principle of Cross-Cultural Communication Advocated by International Community. 

The mainstream principle in today’s world is to promote the interactions between different cultures and ethnic groups. In cultural communication, people of different ethnicities learn from each other and achieve peaceful coexistence. However, Dalai was carrying fire in one hand and water in the other. He initiated talks between Tibetan and Han people in China under the banner of religious communication. Meanwhile, he also tried to sell the concept of Greater Tibet, which doesn’t exist in history at all. By doing this, he planned to segregate Tibetan people and culture with the outside world, especially with other parts of China. The fact is that Tibetan culture and religion has been historically connected with Chinese culture, and even world culture at large. The Middle Way Approach, which denies this basic fact, goes against the current trend. On the other hand, the exceptionalism of Tibetan Buddhism advocated by the Middle Way Approach is not based on fact and will only bring greater risks to Tibetan people themselves.

Tibet boasts its unique culture and religion, and it should be preserved. However, the preservation should be selective, with the essence of Tibetan Buddhism being retained and the outdated superstitions being filtered and abandoned. No single culture can thrive without interaction with other cultures. This is true for both Western and Eastern countries, for both Christianity and Buddhism. Any culture should keep abreast with the latest trend. Even for the most developed countries in western world, their culture has been no longer exclusively occidental and their religion no longer exclusively Christian. All cultural groups are blending with one another, learning from one another and prospering together. The vitality of a culture lies in its openness. A self-enclosed kingdom built on exclusive Tibetan culture and religion will only push Dalai and his followers to a dead end. 

In fact, anti-China propaganda has been Dalai and his followers’ food for thought, and their major strategy is to disrupt the communication between Tibetans and Chinese. This is especially true for Tibetan community in exile, among which Dalai keeps distributing anti-China and anti-communist propaganda, creating an image of an intimidating China and grotesque Chinese government. He also stirred up incidents to cement people’s fear and hatred to China. All of these went against the mainstream value of building a peaceful and inclusive world.

5. The Middle Way Approach Advocates Tibetan Chauvinism

A hidden premise of the Middle Way Approach is to fight against Han Chauvinism. Since Tibetan population is hugely outnumbered by that of Han, Dalai and his followers think Tibetan people can’t be possibly treated on equal terms with Han people as a result. In fact, there are 55 ethnic minorities in China and the cross-ethnic harmony has been well-maintained. They shared weal and woe in solidarity and there is no such thing that different ethnic groups being treated differently.

Essentially, the Middle Way Approach is the advocacy of ethnic exceptionalism. The premise of the Middle Way Approach is the assumption that Tibetan people can’t possibly live in peace and harmony with other ethnic groups, especially Han people. Therefore, Tibetan people must fight for autonomy or ideally independence. To achieve the goal, Dalai and his followers went the extra mile to obstruct the social upward mobility of exiled Tibetans in international community. In China, Dalai provoked hatred and hostility between Tibetans and other ethnicities, especially between Tibetans and Hans.

Consequently, the Middle Way Approach, in its essence, is promoting Tibetan Chauvinism and disregarding the basic rights of other ethnicities. The alleged autonomy for all the Tibetan people under a single administration would be, in Dalai’s imagination, carried out in an area with population of 20 million. Tibetan population takes only 30% of the overall, which is 6 million people. According a Dalai’s report to the US congress in 1987, at least 7.5 million Han people must be expelled, outnumbering the overall Tibetan population. That being the case, the Middle Way Approach would be protecting 30% of Tibetan population at the expense of the other 70% population from other ethnicities. This is no more than fascists’ doctrine as there is no freedom and equality at all. 

The Middle Way Approach represents a sense of superiority of Tibetan upper class, and Dalai Lama labels himself as the protector and spokesman of all Tibetan people. However, Tibetan people was underestimated by Dalai. They are fully capable of handling relations with other ethnic groups by themselves. By now, many Tibetan business people and employers of various industries have been working very well both in Tibet and other parts of China. As for Han Chauvinism, which Tibetan separatists have by all means fought against, doesn’t exist in China either. From constitution to executive regulations, there is no single article or policy made preferentially for the benefit of Han people. On the contrary, there are many preferential policies for the interest of Chinese ethnic minorities.

Conclusion

From the above analysis we may see that the Middle Way Approach is neither standing in the political middle ground nor moderate in practice. Tibetan people, especially those in exile, have become Dalai and his followers’ bargaining chip in negotiation with Chinese government and international community. Tibetan people who believe in Tibetan Buddhism represented by Dalai Lama do not necessarily have to agree with his political agenda by default. The Tibetan tour guide in Bengaluru told me, with frustration, that he had been often called up for anti-China protests against president Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao at school, though he had completely no idea who they were at the time. It was mandatory to join the protest because his teacher asked him to do so. For the anxious Tibetan teenage boy, the Middle Way Approach is leading him further afield from home, to nowhere.

The lives of ordinary people shouldn’t be influenced by political games like this. For the long-term benefits of Tibetan people, to build a framework above politics and religion, with people’s interests at its core, is the key to solve current issues.

Link: http://www.oushinet.com/foreign/british/news/20160915/242732.html?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0